Operation Mindcrime: Media take out Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson

Think of all the violence, sex, debauchery, foul language and cultural rotgut that you see on television every day. Now, consider what got Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson put on “indefinite hiatus” from A&E.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. […] I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical. […] Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. […] Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. […] Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

In the 1980s, Queensrÿche came out with ‘Operation Mindcrime.’ I can’t help but think that on some level that’s what Phil has been found guilty of. Once the media masters call up the right people and say the magic word — “mindcrime” — your career is over.

This whole episode is reminiscent of the time Christian ESPN contributor Chris Broussard was asked his opinion on gay people, and when he gave it he was raked over the coals. ESPN apologized for Mr. Broussard for saying the following: “Personally, I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin…as I think all sex outside of marriage is a sin.”

In the extended comments, Mr. Broussard went on to say that he ate, played sports and had many “good laughs” with a gay friend, but that the two held a fundamental disagreement over the spiritual ramifications of gay sex. The “bigot” chorus began almost immediately.

With Phil Robertson’s ouster, the backlash is even more bizarre. Everyone knows that his family holds strong Christian beliefs. GLADD might not like it, but billions of people agree with Phil’s underlying message (i.e., “neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”)

A&E is certainly within its right to fire any employee it feels as though tarnishes its reputation. No one has a “right” to air time on cable television. However, the road we’re going down is a scary one indeed where simply having an unpopular opinion on what constitutes “sin” can get you run out of town.

Want to watch a few dozen people get blown to pieces tonight? Turn on your television. Want to watch Miley Cyrus grind her butt against a married man’s crotch? MTV should have the video readily available. Want to see Phil Robertson say some silly stuff with the Ducky Dynasty crew in the years ahead? Sorry, he’s been given the boot because GLADD considers him a “stain” on the network. Gotcha.

Phil, just remember: You went out like a wreeeeeecking ball! … You never meant to start a war. You just wanted us to let you in…

Bonus via Colossus of Rhodey: The perception gay rights organizations want you to have a gay men is that they’re all itching to strip down to their underwear, prance around like fools and shove candy canes down their pants. Not insulting. Not insulting at all…

Related

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance.
I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

87 comments

Yeesh. This getting ousted because you disagree with the progressives on some issue is becoming more frequent in today’s day and age, isn’t it? It does set a dangerous precedent when simply having an opinion that contrasts with the progressives is deemed a “sin” and “dangerous.” I’m also sick of moonbat outfits like GLAAD that try to get people fire for simply expressing a dissenting opinion, one that many Americans hold.

The Duck Dynasty family never hid their conservative Christian foundation; is Phil’s opinion really a suprise? Whether one agrees with him or not, they have a massive following of conservative Christian viewers, and A&E knew this and made a lot of revenue from this show. I find it hard to believe A&E didn’t know Phil’s religious beliefs; I think it’s hypocritical to suspend him now.

Yes, that’s one of my big problems with this. A&E execs said, “Hey, wouldn’t it be funny to follow around these uber-Christian dudes from the deep South? I bet we could pull in some huge ratings if we just videotaped them being themselves.” So they did that, and then when the guy acts like himself they have to feign outrage.

You are right, Patrick. A&E is playing dumb, as if they didn’t know, and that’s wrong. They had to have known and thought they could keep a taught leash on this bigot. Didn’t take long for his true beliefs to be revealed.

I’ve only watched the show a couple times it’s first season, and it didn’t take long to ascertain they were conservative Christian; and A&E banked on that following. A&E press released that a 4th brother, who is a preacher would join the show last season…..I just think it wrong for the network to feign suprise and outrage; they follow these guys around with cameras, how can this be a suprise? I don’t think Phil, Piers Morgan, Ben Affleck or whoever should be disciplined for an opinion; much like the Walmart post a while back- we the consumer can vote with our business and viewership if we like or don’t like something about the product.

The preacher would have been interesting. But A&E has editors who control the clips aired and ensure they portray the family in a good light to maintain the brand. Ultimately, this comes down to Robertson having a contractual obligation to protect A&E’s brand while an employee and he did not. Thus, he is suffering the consequences.

Where I disagree with you is that the free market is a democracy. Advertisers pay for the show’s production, and they are notoriously skittish about this sort of speech. Gay people buy things too and work for them. Money pulls the levers of power here.

All the people you mentioned certainly will be disciplined by their employer, as would most any of us with similar controversial takes on hot-button views at work. Could you recite Phils sermon at work and stay employed? I couldn’t. I can’t accept Phil as a free speech martyr, because it’s likely his family will hop over to another network, whether the hunting channel or even the 700 club, to speak however he likes. Every forgets the other Robertson who has said way more nasty things on air. He hasn’t been disciplined.

@Person “Darwinistic perspective?” I think you have expanded a theory of biological evolution into a philosophical viewpoint, which it is not. If you are referring to the age-old question, does might make right? I would answer, no. Humans are social animals and anti-social behavior such as murder, deceit, and theft threatens the bonds that hold a tribe together. If we were a species of solo animals, we very likely wouldn’t have made it past the first pack of saber-tooth tigers we ran across.

I was speaking of viewers themselves as opposed to the industry; however cynically I think advertisers will go wherever they think they can make their impact. Howard Stern and SNL (I’m a fan of both) are controversial, and have advertisers.

I don’t think Morgan or Affleck will be disciplined by their employer, nor should they as we are all entitled to our opinions. Can I give Phil’s sermon at work; no. However Phil wasn’t at work when he gave the speech, just as I’ll assume Affleck wasn’t dressed as Batman while doing his activism. Both should be allowed to pursue their interests. Plus, I don’t work for a reality show that hired me to be myself. I never said Phil was a martyr, I said the network was hypocritical. A few years back when the “jersey shore” cast were getting arrested for bar fights; certainly they should answer to their legal issues, but it would have been hypocritical for MTV to fire them. MTV hired them because they acted that way.

As far as contractual obligations, you may well be correct, as I’m unfamiliar with the details of the Robertson’s contract terms.

Good points. Anyone who has a reality show signs a similar contract. Duck Dynasty is an A&E-owned product. And Robertson is their employee. Many employees have clauses in their contract that prohibit speech or action that would tarnish or diminish the brand at or outside of work. Robertson’s interview with GQ certainly counts as that. Duck Dynasty is not a controversial show–at least, it is not edited that way. A&E also has the right to decide what constitutes an infraction and the penalty. Note that Robertson wasn’t fired outright, but suspended.

I’ll completely agree that it is rather hypocritical, but business doesn’t follow the same rules as you or I. It’s all about shareholder value, and anything that could potentially harm that is not going to last long. Rush, Morgan, and Stern all have controversy built into their act and occasionally suffer loss of advertisers, but their employers know this. Their respective ratings (and sales) outweigh the risk to their employers. Duck Dynasty isn’t a controversial show, and A&E clearly doesn’t want to be associated with homophobes, regardless of whatever religious foundation they claim as basis of their beliefs. They were foolish to think that they could completely control this family’s message or actions. They risked and lost. Show is likely kaput.

Yes, I know shareholders and perceptions can dictate a business behavior….it’s actually fascinating to see how thats evolved in my working life; but anyways, that is interesting how the reality casts are contracted; appreciate the info!

Judging by the raging, near sputtering, spectacle by GLAAD, it may have been too soon to have removed homosexuality from the “mental disorder” sections of Psychiatric text books. Phil Robertson stated a valid analyses of promiscuous sex and homosexuality as reasonably and properly filtered through the tenants of Christianity. He was blunt yet accurate. After reading the text of his comments, I do not understand what part of Mr. Robertson comments could be construed as lies by GLAAD. But, from much experience these days we know that Progressive groups, similar to, and including, GLAAD in their politics, know they can wield great influence by casting even false aspersions at people they wish to destroy…as exemplified by the frequent baseless cry of “racism” these days.

Let’s see, would I rather live next door to Phil Robertson’s family or to Barack and Michelle? Would I rather live next door to a sincere conscience-guided Christian or a delusions-of-imperial-grandeur sociopathic Manchurian Candidate like person bent on destroying the imaginary colonial enemy described to him in the madrasa-taught fairy-tails of his youth? Hmm, let me think! ;-D

“We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.”

“Phil would never incite or encourage hate.”

Did you watch the video I posted above of Phil speaking at Pennsylvania’s Berean Bible Church’s Wild Game Supper in 2010?

Reminds me of this quote.

Once when the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Ghandi he asked him, “Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?” Ghandi replied, “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
– Gandhi : Portrayal of a Friend, by E. Stanley Jones

“Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Considering Hindu’s created a caste system based on skin color and don’t even HAVE a Christ like figure to even measure themselves up to…unless you consider Rama christ-like, in which case, tell that to Sita.

Also, yeah pal, but the difference is with he have an absolute morality and a standard with which to measure ourselves. We may fall short of that standard, but the bar is still there and we wouldn’t lower it to accommodate people.

Heck, even Hindu’s have a sense of absolute morality. Sure, it lead to their caste system, but it’s there and I’ll take that and accept them over an atheist any day of the week because even their standards and their closest analogues to Christ are higher than yours and your closest mass murdering analogues of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Robespierre, Pol Pot, The Kims, the Castros, and etc.

If you wanna get into a fight about whether those I mentioned just happened to be atheists or whose ideologies were motivated by atheism, I say bring it. You’re going to lose, but bring it.

Ghandi was no saint and I don’t agree with his society’s structure either. I’m no fan of Hinduism. However, his quote is apt in this situation. The grief comes from whether or not a Christian adheres more strongly to the Old Testament’s wrathful, jealous god or New Testament’s Jesus’ entirely different message. The devil is in the picking and choosing.

Absolutes are a dangerous thing. Especially morality. Any Christian will tell you that even “Thou shall not kill” has caveats for saving others and war.

I think you’re discombobulating my “standards and analogues,” Emmanuel. If you think that atheists look up to genocidal maniacs, you are grossly misinformed. I’d rather not hijack this thread, but I won’t let your vile comments about me and my beliefs stand as the last word.

“If you wanna get into a fight about whether those I mentioned just happened to be atheists or whose ideologies were motivated by atheism, I say bring it. You’re going to lose, but bring it.”

What most people don’t understand is each of those regimes were messianistic, and replaced the church as a threat to their totalitarian power with their own regime in its place. Orwell wrote “all totalitarianism is must be theocratic.” North Korea is the most religious country on the planet. They just worship dear leader. He performs miracles. He was born under a miracle. From him all blessings come. See the parallels there? Atheism, which is the lack of the belief in religion, doesn’t commit mass murder. Madmen do who use religion as a framework to create their own cults of personality do. Believe whatever you want, but I’ll take enlightenment thinking over any religion.

Asserting that my personal analogues are mass murdering, genocidal maniacs is disgusting. I have afforded you much more civility than you have me. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are mistaken; we are not continuing this line of thought. You stated some false and vile things about my viewpoints, likened my beliefs to mass murderers, and I gave you polite and direct refutation of your statements, partially via Hitchens’ videos. You didn’t even bother giving a thoughtful rebuttal but instead made a comment about pinching your brow and then changed the subject. You begged for me to “bring it” as if this were some childish zero-sum game, claimed you’d won already, and then had nothing to offer intellectually in return. May I suggest you go argue with atheists on Craigslist’s atheist forum if you want to play that game? I’m on another level.

Oh no lighty, we’re still having this conversation and I am formulating rebuttals to your statement. I just asked you that constrained or unconstrained question because it’s important if we’re going to continue and because I don’t have time to rip apart your argument just yet. This latter reason doesn’t negate the former, though, so I’ll ask again.

You’re old enough to remember when MTV actually, ummm, played music videos regularly? 🙂 Me, too!

Thanks for the link. I would think that Bob Newhart, at his age, wouldn’t give a rip what some of these professional complainers have to say. Sad.

I think this is the takeaway:

GLAAD took as “vile” not the bodily areas of focus which Mr Robertson correctly identified. It was the calling of homosexual behavior (acts) as sinful that was intolerable to them. Yet

Robertson emphasized that it was not just homosexual behavior that is sinful, but so is bestiality and adultery, drunkenness, greed, idolatry, swindling, and terrorism. And this is true: these are the Church’s teachings. As is it taught that sinners, of which all of us are, should be loved and taught that sinful behavior must be avoided. A murderer is not excused by his saying, “God made me want to kill people, so that is what I do.”

Phil went out of his way to include all sorts of other behavior that is considered sin. I don’t know what they expect of the guy. Heck, even his statement acknowledges that he hasn’t been perfect…

I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Famous person opens mouth, says something stupid, and usually you react with utter contempt. At this blog, Ben Affleck’s outspoken politics hurt his Batman more than his box office bombs. But since Duck Dynasty guy a religious conservative, it’s okay? How many liberal stars do you suggest to keep their beliefs to themselves to not offend their conservative audience, but this guy potentially offending A&E gay viewers is okay because Jesus?

How about double standards? From a liberal standpoint you can only express views which are Liberal. The media doesn’t jump on Affleck’s back because he espouse’s Liberal Dogma yet the Conservative Christian is jumped on repeatedly.

You make a good point, Andrew. As I mention in the post, there all sorts of cultural rotgut is promoted and celebrated on television, but if you paraphrase the Bible in an interview…well, we just can’t have that, now can we?

My advice for “conservative stars” (if you want to call Phil that) who were hired for a reality television show where they were supposed to be themselves, is to be true to who they are. My advice for actors who are paid to portray iconic fictional superheroes is to not say things that will make it unnecessarily hard for me to believe they are those well-established characters.

At this blog, Ben Affleck’s outspoken politics hurt his Batman more than his box office bombs. But since Duck Dynasty guy a religious conservative, it’s okay?

Ben Affleck is an actor-activist. He makes commercials and attends events where he tells people who to vote for and what to think. He raises millions of dollars for politicians who seek to control every aspect of our lives. Again, Ben admits that endless strings of fundraisers for guys like Obama made him feel gross… Phil Robertson, made famous for being Phil Robertson, gave an interview with GQ magazine. See the difference?

How many liberal stars do you suggest to keep their beliefs to themselves to not offend their conservative audience, but this guy potentially offending A&E gay viewers is okay because Jesus?

A&E sought out Phil knowing he was openly a Christian. He regularly talks about his faith. Why are they shocked? Why are you pretending like you don’t understand the difference between a reality show that became popular in large part because of the values expressed by its cast, and some guy like Ben Affleck who is paid to be Batman saying that when he sees a Republican one of his first thoughts is, “I probably wouldn’t like him”?

A&E hired the Duck Dynasty crew knowing exactly who they were. They banked on them being themselves — literally and figuratively. And now because GLAAD is upset that Phil paraphrased a part of the Bible it doesn’t like, the guy is supposed to be suspended or fired? Get real.

When have you read a blog post here calling for Ben Affleck to be fired? For Sean Penn to be fired? For any number of Hollywood dimwits to be fired? I don’t do that. What I do say is that if the audience dries up on them, they shouldn’t be surprised.

Phil Robertson signed a legal contract, along with the rest of his family appearing on the show, to behave in a manner that would not harm both the Duck Dynasty and A&E brands. His controversial statements, while certainly protected speech under the Constitution, are not free from consequence. His employer suspended him, Robertson gave a half apology, nothing changed, and the Duck Dynasty family is, as of today, quitting the show.

Good riddance. And I wish that crapfest purveyor A&E would disappear along with them.

Hey Lighty: eugenics, social engineering, abortion (an off shoot of eugenics), ethnic cleansing on previously unseen scales, hedonism, nihilism, materialism, and general woe. The Old and New Testaments of man, especially atheistic man, are much worse.

Christianity is divided into different denominations, with different interpretations of scripture, so I don’t know if any individual or group can be the arbiter of “what true Christians believe.” That goes for GLAAD, and it goes for the KKK and for the wingnuts at the Westboro Baptist Church. Of course, wars have been fought over what “true Christians” are supposed to believe. Thank God I’m an agnostic.

So my wavelength is mass murder, hedonism, eugenics, blah, blah, blah? It’s sad you continue to believe that, even after I refuted your baseless statements above. You can’t seem to grasp the concept behind George Orwell’s quote “all totalitarianism is must be theocratic.” Until you do, and come up with a cogent argument that the totalitarian regimes you mentioned were truly motivated by atheism, then repeating your incorrect notion that atheism kills more than Christianity just sounds the like braying of an ass.

The issue here is indeed double standards. An instance like Robertson’s is immediately nationwide news, despite what Doug noted — these guys were hired to be themselves. But only the conservative media made an issue out of Alec Baldwin’s vile comments, and those of Martin Bashir (to name just two).

It’s just like the whole Sandra Fluke garbage. Rush Limbaugh was suddenly the devil incarnate, but Bill Maher was “just making jokes.”

And the thing with Bashir is, MSNBC refuses to say that he was fired because of his sick commentary. At first he went “on vacation” and then he just “resigned.” Why? Umm, just because… They couldn’t bring themselves to say, “Yes, Bashir was fired because he said that it would be a good idea to defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth.”

I agree. The double standards are ridiculous. It’s okay for liberal celebrities to open their mouths but it’s “evil” for conservatives to do the same. I can’t top what everyone else has said, but Doug and Hube are right: they hired Phil knowing that he is a Christian, knowing that he has conservative beliefs. They wanted to show him and his family being themselves. And then they act surprised when he reveals his views in public and the thought control police (in this case GLAAD) influences A&E to fire him.

Like I said earlier in the thread, it sets a dangerous precedent, firing people because you disagree with their beliefs.

I don’t think Doug (or anyone) has asked for Ben Affleck to be fired. Or any of the Hollywood idiots, for that matter. He merely points out that when they play superheroes, opening their mouths about politics takes away from the fantasy world they are portraying on the screen.

“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer – to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin …”

LOL. In all serious, this is a dangerous path we’re on, if perpetually aggrieved lunatics (like GLAAD) have the power to get people fired for expressing views contrary to those of what the liberal elites think. They’d love to criminalize so-called “hate speech,” which actually translates to “speech I don’t agree with personally.”

I want to see no one fired for their opinion. Let the free market speak. If the media reaches enough of an audience to support their articles or programing let them.

Let me add, the day that a statute was created with penalties against “hate speech” was the start of the clang of the death knell of the 1st Amendment. Such devolution of our rights will eventually reach a point that one voicing an opinion that they don’t like chocolate ice cream or stories about sugar-plumb fairies, will be brought up on charges. Such phrases will be judged “code words” subjecting the speaker to, at best, loss of his job. At worst, subject to Federal charges.

We are closer than you think when a judge says that a baker cannot refuse to provide his skills to produce a cake for wedding event which conflicts the bakers moral core. Party cake is not a right!

Bruce, did you hear that Piers Morgan said the 1st Amendment shouldn’t apply to guys like Phil? I can’t believe that Mr. Morgan doesn’t realize how close he is to becoming a giant monster with that line of thinking. So when it comes to the 1st and 2nd Amendments, Piers Morgan believes they should only apply to people who Piers Morgan deems worthy. Unreal.

What is beyond their comprehension is that when the Constitution is nullified, as Morgan suggests, then law becomes the whim of the elected official of the moment. Mr. Morgan might well then lose his right to be heard when Ted Cruz is elected. Good thing that Conservatives are not usually vindictive like that.(but in Piers’ case, we just might make an exception. ;-D )

So not only does Morgan despise the 2nd Amendment, he despises the 1st as well. Only people who agree with him should be allowed to speak their mind, in his view. That’s pathetic, but not entirely surprising.

“…Palin praised the media for keeping on the story alive after Bashir apologized for comments he made about her on his show. “It was refreshing to see though, that many in the media did come out and say, ‘Look our standards have got to be higher than this’,” Palin said this morning on Fox News Channel‘s Fox & Friends. “Those with that platform, with a microphone, a camera in their face, they have to have some more responsibility taken.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper (liberal) called Baldwin a liar on air for refuting he used the word “faggot” at a paparazzo. GLAAD commented: “Mr. Baldwin can’t fight for equality on paper, while degrading gay people in practice…” GLAAD did go rather soft on him since he’s defended them in the past, but still.

End result was that both Baldwin and Bashir were rightfully fired (or “let go,” or “encouraged to leave,” or “asked to resign quietly,” or whatever). I think agree with Doug that they should have been very clear that they would not tolerate intolerance and hateful speech on their news networks.

So the First Amendment protects panhandling and kiddie porn, but not a redneck quoting (or paraphrasing) a Bible verse. Liberals champion freedom of speech, but they want an exception for “hate speech.” Of course, their definition of “hate speech” is so broad and vague that it means whatever they want it to mean. Either you have freedom of speech or you don’t. Controversial (and possibly offensive) statements are the ones that need the law’s protection. If the First Amendment only protects popular, politically correct, non-controversial speech, then it is about as useful as a solar-powered sun lamp.

Actually, the Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on government, not the private sector, so the First Amendment shouldn’t be an issue when a TV network fires or suspends an employee. It only came up because of Morgan’s tweet that the Constitution should not apply to “vile bigots” (i.e., anyone who disagrees with a leftist about anything). And, whether you agree with them or not (and, for the record, I don’t), some religions/denominations do preach that homosexuality and premarital sex in general are sinful. (Robertson’s comments were based on 1 Corinthians 6:9.) Religious people have rights, too, including the right to practice their religion as long as they don’t try to force it on the rest of us. A&E was technically within its rights, but their hypocritical feigned outrage is hard to take. (“I’m shocked to find out that there’s illegal gambling going on here…”) They knew the Robertsons were gun-owning, Christian rednecks when they first contracted to do the show. By the same token, it would be hypocritical if Ellen DeGeneres got fired from her talk show for expressing pro-gay marriage views, and the employers pretended that, after all these years, they didn’t know that she was a gay rights advocate.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I owe you answers to your off-topic questions, entertaining you while you clearly don’t have the time to formulate rebuttals to your original off-topic questions. Not going to happen.

Besides the suit against the Colorado bakery, there was a discrimination complaint against a wedding photographer in New Mexico who refused (on religious grounds) to photograph a same-sex ceremony. The court ruling said that “at some point in our lives, all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.” Compromise? The Left never gives anything up. We are becoming a nation of over-privileged spoiled brats. Wedding cake and photographs are not rights. It is not as if firefighters refused to extinguish a fire in a gay bar, or a hospital refused to admit a black patient. Having to shop around for a different baker or caterer is not a violation of one’s rights.

I have the Operation Mindcrime album now I may have to give it another listen. I think the best thing for the people on the show would be to look over their contracts and see what they can do to complete them with as little effort as possible. For example, can they just sit and watch TV until the program is finished filming or can they get away with not talking? I just do not understand why the station pulled this program when the majority of the population of interest agrees with the person’s statement. I also find it odd that they took that part out of context and made it out to sound worse than it really was.

Just curious – how did Disney, which owns both A & E and ESPN, handle Chris Broussard’s comments?

Here was their response: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

That’s it. No suspension.

What’s lost in all this is that it’s not what he said regarding homosexuality, it’s most likely HOW he said it that crossed the HR line. Further, I believe his ignorant comments about Jim Crow-era blacks were far more detrimental.

But let’s be clear: Disney, A & E, and ESPN all reacted in their own self-interest at the time. That’s a fundamental tenant of Free Enterprise, which is something true fiscal conservatives champion to their dying day.

I do believe A & E handled this incorrectly by handling it publicly the way they did. They made Robertson the victim, and nobody – NOBODY – plays the victim card more, or better, than the evangelical right.

Just curious – how did Disney, which owns both A & E and ESPN, handle Chris Broussard’s comments?

Here was their response: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

That’s it. No suspension.

That wasn’t “it” from the slew usual suspects, who made this one of the top news stories for an entire cycle. Besides, nothing Broussard said during the newscast was disrespectful or required a formal statement from Disney/ESPN. His comments were rather innocuous. It’s a sad state of affairs that it became a national news story.

What’s lost in all this is that it’s not what he said regarding homosexuality, it’s most likely HOW he said it that crossed the HR line. Further, I believe his ignorant comments about Jim Crow-era blacks were far more detrimental.

Crossed the HR line? You’re right, if only Phil had stuck to the “Gene Simmons: Family Jewels”-approved level of discourse everything would have been fine. Detrimental, like A*E using people with serious psychological problems (i.e., “Hoarders”) for your entertainment?

Phil talked about his experience growing up as a poor man in Louisiana. Unless I’m mistaken, he didn’t say what he witnessed was what other black people across the United States actually experienced.

I do believe A & E handled this incorrectly by handling it publicly the way they did. They made Robertson the victim, and nobody – NOBODY – plays the victim card more, or better, than the evangelical right.

I can think of a few people who can play the victim pretty well — the Jesse Jacksons of the world come to mind. I can also think of a certain kind of feminist — those who say only white people can be racist — who I’d put up at the top of the list.

Here’s a suggestion for A&E, padraighansen: Don’t hire southern Christian “rednecks” who you hope make you tens-of-millions of dollars for the station if you’re going to act shocked when they paraphrase the bible in ways that offend GLAAD.

Idiots like Jesse Jackson and Al sharpton have turned playing the victim into a lucrative career. And feminists like Park, too.

The so-called “evangelical right” does not pose a threat to this country in my view. I know a few evangelical Christians who are as far from that “nutty Christian” stereotype (which people get from Hollywood, of course) as can be. I’m more concerned about those clowns like GLAAD and Park and the Jacksons and Sharptons who try to impose their will on everyone and everything.

Regarding Broussard – I never said that was an issue. I agree, what Broussard said was perfectly fine. There was no issue. My point is that everyone is throwing A & E under the bus, and I can guarantee you that decisions such as this – whether at ABC, or ESPN, A & E, or anywhere else – all roll up to Disney’s legal department and slew of outside counsel, for one of which I am employed. As for Robertson, the latest video of him suggesting that men should marry women when their fifteen…ugh, I’m speechless. I have a daughter. To think of her married at 15 is disgusting. Sorry. If the evangelical right attempts to defend this – which is both pedophilia and statutory rape – they will go the way of the ACLU, Jesse Jackson, and others in terms of political weight.

As for the evangelical right, and to that end, the extremist right that’s emerged over the past 15 years, I see a stunning lack of accountability and an unbelievable amount of finger pointing. It’s pathetic. I’m not saying the left is dramatically better….they may not be, either. But as a former Republican turned moderate independent, seeing the party of limited government and free enterprise being hijacked by the evangelical right is disturbing.

Finally, on A & E, ESPN, and Disney: In all situations – going back to Disney’s decision to fire Bill Maher in the wake of his comments post 9/11 to the correct non-decision with Chris Broussard, and the incorrect decision to make a martyr out of the Westboro-esque Robertson – Disney has done what ever other business has done: They’ve acted in their own self-interest. This should be championed by those who love free enterprise, whether or not you agree with what was said, either by the person or the company. Instead, it shows just how much the free enterprise ideology has been hijacked by a very unintelligent, but highly passionate and devoted, evangelical right. And believe me, I understand your rage if you’re thinking with your religion. But one thing that has become increasing clear is that the evangelical right is full-on for supporting only the “freedoms” that align with their personal ideology. And even you cannot deny that.

As for the evangelical right, and to that end, the extremist right that’s emerged over the past 15 years, I see a stunning lack of accountability and an unbelievable amount of finger pointing. It’s pathetic. I’m not saying the left is dramatically better….they may not be, either. But as a former Republican turned moderate independent, seeing the party of limited government and free enterprise being hijacked by the evangelical right is disturbing.

The right was so “hijacked” by the Evangelicals that John McCain was the go-to guy in 2008, and then Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum got elbow checked by…the moderate Mormon guy from Massachusetts? If I’m not mistaken, a good chunk of young Evangelicals took a ride on the Hope-and-Change express in 2008. Who are the front-runners for 2016 at this point for the GOP? Rand Paul, and probably Rubio? Not exactly your Evangelical Christian poster boys…

But one thing that has become increasing clear is that the evangelical right is full-on for supporting only the “freedoms” that align with their personal ideology. And even you cannot deny that.

There was once a guy who referred to the “Christian Taliban” in the comments section. Your reply seems to exist within that realm of thought. I guess my question is: Where is the evidence of some sort of tyrannical Evangelical government that forces you to attend Church on Sunday, forces gay people into Evangelical re-education camps and forbids women from showing any skin above their ankles? I’m not seeing it. So every Christmas Bill O’Reilly does a few segments on the “war on Christmas,” and you had to put up with a week’s worth of news stories on Phil Robertson. I’ll take that over secular leftists who write laws forbidding me to have a 32 oz. Coke, regulate how much water my toilet can use per flush and tax me up the butt because I’m a hard-working law-abiding citizen who minds my own business.

You cannot be serious. Suddenly, a ban on soft drinks of a certain size – which I do not agree with, either – is anti-Christian? Give me a break. Personhood Bills (and for the record, I’m anti-abortion – but I am pro-choice. A lot of people are – it’s a delicate, complex balance), Definition of marriage legislation, and as for the “war on Christmas”, that’s a manufactured controversy if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve got a brother-in-law with a doctorate in theological studies, with faith as strong as anyone I know, and he’ll be the first to tell you that Christ was most likely born sometime around late spring, early summer. Tying Christ to the celebration of Yule & the Winter Solstice was done by the Puritan settlers after they cancelled Christmas celebrations because of the drinking & revelry in early America. Do your research. As for the rest of the evangelical right – I’m back in Texas and Oklahoma on a fairly regular basis for both work and to visit family (i don’t know where you live) – and it’s a level of conservatism 180 degrees different from my conservative ideology. They’ve pushed people like me closer to a libertarian edge, which i’ve never really identified. They want the smaller government, except when it comes to what consenting adults do in their bedroom and women’s reproductive systems. Representatives like Steve Stockman & Louie Gohmert in Texas, Sally Kern (state rep) in Oklahoma have all made statements tying high-capacity magazines to their biblical rights, etc.

My point: It’s out of control. Christ anointed the sick, he didn’t push to deny them healthcare. He lived in poverty and waged a war on poverty, not on the poor. My fear is that if Christ walked the earth today, he’d be executed in the name of Christ, again. Too many people who pat themselves on their back for their Christianity are Christians in name only. Note – I’m not saying all, by any stretch. I’ve seen, and met, and worked with, people from a myriad of faiths who quietly embody the faith they hold so dear.

As for O’Reilly, Palin, Bachman, Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Maher, etc. – I believe many on all sides of the political aisle believe SOME of what they say, but it’s also all about ratings. They all know how to appeal to their base, similar to Colbert & Stewart. You’re probably smart enough to recognize it, but take a trip to the deep south, where people living well below the poverty line scream about socialism and government spending and social programs while using food stamp cards, drawing unemployment, and letting taxpayers pay their medical bills.

There is no political ideology that is perfect. Both primary ideologies in the U.S. have fallen victim to extremists. But if you’ve developed the level of hate it appears that you have for “secular leftists”, how long will it be until you pull a McVeigh?

Oh, Hube. Go join your fellow Westboros and protest something. Get a life, and grow-up. You’re too much of a coward to stand face to face with me and call me a prick. Wimpy little cowards like you typically hide behind fake names on an internet message board and type things they don’t have the balls to say to someone’s face. You’re a real man.

Now you refer to me as a “fellow Westboroer,” while Doug may turn into another Tim McVeigh. Talk about cowards who would never dare to make such accusation face-to-face …

So I say it again: You’re a prick. Anyone who feels to the need to fall into the Godwin’s Law-like ridiculousness of saying someone will commit a terrorist act is exactly that. Deal with it, prick. Or, “real man.”

Hube, what happened? I went to bed last night and when I woke up this morning I’ve been linked with a domestic terrorist, you’re suddenly a member of the Westboro Baptist church, and masturbation and vagina comments are being hurled around the comments section? Huh? 🙂

Maybe padraighansen and Suey Park should duke it out. They could just have a big hyperbole grudge match on Twitter and revel in their nastiness as we bring in the new year.

You cannot be serious. Suddenly, a ban on soft drinks of a certain size – which I do not agree with, either – is anti-Christian? Give me a break.

How on earth did you get that? My point was that you’re exaggerating the threat of Evangelicals while downplaying the very real disappearing act of civil liberties via an ever-expanding federal government. The fact that I put “war on Christmas” in quotations should have also given you a clue as to how I feel about O’Reilly… (Note: I think he has some good points, but he also has a desire to boost ratings.)

There is no political ideology that is perfect. Both primary ideologies in the U.S. have fallen victim to extremists. But if you’ve developed the level of hate it appears that you have for “secular leftists”, how long will it be until you pull a McVeigh?

Okay, I’m about done with you. You’re going to imply that I’m on the road to becoming a domestic terrorist? Nothing I said warranted that sort of comment. That was totally out of line.

I had a private conversation with my brother recently who said something along the lines of: “So the ‘religious right’ can’t even control what happens within the GOP, but yet they’re supposedly pushing the nation to the far right? Okay.” I agree with him completely.

I’ve been very respectful of your point of view, and your response was to link me with Timothy McVeigh. Telling. I suggest finding another blog to comment on if that’s the level of discourse you’re going to bring to the table. Good day.

Hube, what happened? I went to bed last night and when I woke up this morning I’ve been linked with a domestic terrorist, you’re suddenly a member of the Westboro Baptist church, and masturbation and vagina comments are being hurled around the comments section? Huh?

Got me, dude! I reread that a few times and was like, “He did NOT just say that.” I mean, there was nothing remotely said by you which called for such a comment.

BTW “real man,” a cursory examination of my blog would show that, based on what you’ve written here, we’re a heckuva lot more alike politically than you’d think. I tried to garner such from your own writings at your own blog by clicking on your link … but there isn’t a damn thing up there. Why even provide the link then, hmm?

Wow, ” fellow Westboroer?!” Wow. And Timothy McVeigh (who was a secularist, at least toward the end of his life; he mentioned in an interview in 2001, prior to his execution, that “science was his god” and that he didn’t believe in Hell or Heaven), too? Wow. Hey, I’m one of those conservative Christians (though I’m not a practicing one, I still identify strongly with the beliefs) and I find the Westboro Baptist Church to be a despicable group.

Obviously, the troll you just banned had a weak case, so he compares you to McVeigh and the Westboro Baptist Church, which is kind of like invoking Godwin’s Law. Like Hube said, what’s next? Stalin? Pol Pot? Mengistu Mariam? Ceauescu? If his case is that weak, he shouldn’t even bother.

Yes, I had to scratch my head at the McVeigh comment. My guess is that my first reply to him was on the mark…and so he decided to just say something inflammatory, hoping to throw me off course. Not happening.